משנה אבות ב:יב

תהילים ב:יא

עבדו את ה' ביראה,
וגילו
ברעדה.

Rav Soleveitchik, Divrei Hashkafa, p. 78

The young American generation...is not totally engrossed in the pragmatic, utilitarian outlook...
To the degree that average people in our society attain higher levels of knowledge and general intelligence,
we cannot imbue them with a Jewish standpoint that relies primarily on sentiment and ceremony.

On the other hand, the typical modern Orthodox Jew bridles at the thought of constricting his autonomy.
Lacking a hagiographic orientation, he probably holds even his "own" gedolim in less awe than the haredi exudes with
respect to his mentors. But even if this were not so, he would still be somewhat reluctant, on personal and philosophic grounds,
to seek or even accept their counsel. That reluctance is, after all, part of his modernity. From Descartes on, if not since
the Renaissance, the concern with personal judgment—whether in Kantian ethics, libertarian politics, Romantic aesthetics,
or existential angst—is central to modern culture. Moreover, the modern Orthodox Jew would not regard his reluctance
as a failing. He would, in all likelihood, insist upon seeing it as a virtue—the result, not of presumptuous vanity,
but of a readiness to confront reality as a responsible spiritual being; and he would speak of striking the proper balance between
the avoidance of error and the value of personal engagement.

Leaves of Faith, Volume 1, p. 295

Come now, and let us reason together, remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations. Was there ever anything
like this, and where, then, did you find such a custom in any of the books of the sages of Israel, either Rishonim
or Aharonim, that there should be a praiseworthy custom to ask for worldly counsel, as to what to do with respect to
secular matters, of even the greatest sages of Israel of old, such as the Tannaim or Amora'im, to whom no secret was foreign
and to whom even the byways of Heaven were familiar...?

Leaves of Faith, Volume 1, p. 322

But they do ordinarily command a price. Obviously, a community or an institution that harps incessantly upon a
single theme should inculcate greater adherence to it than one that advances several simultaneously. The
monochromatic pursuit of Torah, narrowly defined, will presumably result in greater expertise that a more diverse approach;
and an ideology committed to the proposition that nothing but Talmud Torah is of intellectual worth should instill a more
passionate commitment than one which contends that, for a ben Torah, learning may be central but need not be
exclusive.

Those who nevertheless opt for a ketonet passim do so out of the conviction, consonant with Hazal's statement that
כל העוסק בתורה בלבד
דומה כמי שאין לו
אלוקה, "Whoever engages in Torah only, is as one who has no G-d," that Torah and
its study must, ideally, exist within the context of the totality of avodat Hashem and human life. But they recognize
that they pay a price for their Torat hesed, even if they deem it worthwhile.

Leaves of Faith, Volume 1, p. 312

Does one champion a complex of views regarding the basic and ultimate matters—history, nature, the relation
of the temporal and the eternal, of secularity and the sacred, even of G-d and man—because he has probed
the issues in depth and these views constitute his innermost convictions? Or does one accept them because they
provide and convenient equilibrium between rigorous insular faith and multifaceted culture, enabling him to
enjoy the psychological security of remaining firmly anchored in tradition, while basking in the social,
intellectual, and, yes, economic ambience of his contemporary milieu?

Far more grievous, however, is the existence of a weakness that logically does not inhere in the centrist outlook,
and sociologically need not flow from it. What in the quest for scope mandates, for example, that children in a
mamlakhti-dati school in Jerusalem should go home at noon, while their peers in a heder learn until evening? What degree of
historical sensitivity dictates that a haredi of high school age make do with three weeks summer vacation, while his modern
counterpart has well over two months? Does a universalist concern require that youngsters—and hence most adults
as well—know a great deal about the Rolling Stones but nothing of the Avnei Nezer? That they be familiar with batting
averages but unable to identify Reb Menachem Zembe?

The sad answer is self-evident. Not just the exigencies of budgeting energies, resources, or time, both the balancing
of needs and the assignment of priorities, but sheer shallowness or callousness with respect to yiddishkeit is responsible for
such abberations. These are the weaknesses that truly hurt, both because they are so avoidable and because of the mindset they
presumably reflect. Juggling priorities and balancing opportunities, determining orders of importance amoung values,
deciding what to emphasize and what to defer: this is all part of the inevitable complexity of spiritual existence, personal
or collective.

There are at least two distinct types of Modern Orthodox, depending largely on the criteria used for
defining the group. One is philosophically or ideologically modern, while the other is more appropriately
characterized as behaviorally modern. In the category of philosophically Modern Orthodox would be those who are
meticulously observant of Halakhah but are, nevertheless, philosophically modern. Within this context, being modern means,
at minimum, having a positive perspective on general education and knowledge; viewing oneself, from a religious perspective,
as being part of, and having responsibility for, both the larger Jewish community as well as society in general;
and being positively disposed to Israel and religious Zionism.

The behaviorally Modern Orthodox, on the other hand, are not deeply concerned with philosophical ideas
about either modernity or religious Zionism. By and large, they define themselves as Modern Orthodox in the
sense that they are not meticulously observant. In many ways, their definition of themselves as Modern Orthodox
has the same basis as did those whom Marshall Sklare found to define themselves as Conservative. That is, when asked,
"What do you mean when you say you are Conservative?" the responses were, typically: "Now—I'd guess you'd call it
middle of the road, as far as (not) being as strict as the Orthodox, yet not quite as Reformed as the Reformed,"
or "... I don't like the old-fashioned type, or the Reform. I'm between the two of them." Similarly,
most of those who define themselves as Modern Orthodox do so in reference to right-wing or "Sectarian"
Orthodoxy, and they define themselves as modern in the sense that they are not as observant.

[...]

For when all is said and done, it is traditional, Sectarian Orthodoxy which has been successful
in maintaining and even strengthening itself as a community. By contrast, although there may be many
individuals who define themselves as Modern Orthodox, Modern Orthodoxy has not established itself as
a real movement in the way that Sectarian Orthodoxy has, nor is it likely to.

[...]

The majority of those who consider themselves Modern Orthodox are so behaviorally rather than philosophically.
As indicated previously, it is their very selectivity in observance that manifests their modernity. However,
for them, that selectivity is almost solely a matter of personal choice. They usually do not seek to legitimize
their behavior ideologically—halakhically—nor do they feel a need to.

Orthodox Judaism is the stream of Judaism
which adheres to a relatively strict interpretation and application of the laws and ethics first canonized in the
Talmud
("The Oral Law") and later
codified in the Shulchan Aruch
("Code of Jewish Law"). It is governed by these works and the
Rabbinical commentary of the last 1,000+ years.

Orthodox Judaism is characterized by:

The belief that the Torah
(i.e. the Pentateuch) and its
pertaining laws are Divine:
Transmitted by God
to Moses who then wrote it down, and cannot be
changed by a human being.

God has made an exclusive unbreakable covenant with the
Children of Israel, the
ancestors of the Jewish people, to be governed by the Torah.

The belief that there is also an oral
law in Judaism, embodied mainly in the Talmud and Aggadah,
which is intrinsically and inherently entwined with the written law of the Torah.

Adherence to Halakha (code/s of Jewish law), as
codified mainly in the Shulchan Aruch, as an expression of both the written and oral laws.

Judging the world outside, at any point in history and time, by the
principles and guidance of what is presented and taught in the Torah/Talmud/Aggadah/Halakha primarily
through the viewpoint of rabbis and
their rabbinical
literature.

Editor's note: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia collaboratively written by its readers. Any of the links above may have
been edited since this article was written and so do not reflect the opinions or approval of Young Israel or Rabbi Hammer.

Havarah

Local Conditions

The Eruv has not been inspected today

Site Infomation

You have Javascript disabled. Many of the features of this website may be unavailable.
You may turn Javascript through
the Internet Options... or Preferences... menu items.
You of course are welcome to explore the rest
of the website!